ABSTRACT: Purpose: As online course offerings and de-gree programs in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) expand, application of best practices to ensure quality student outcomes in the preparation of future professionals is essential. This article offers an overview of current online degree programs in CSD, identifies evi-dence-based practices in online education, and provides a detailed description of how best practices in online education were applied to a multi-institutional online speech-language pathology master’s degree program. Conclusion: The information presented in this article should benefit institutions that are developing or revising online education programs and assist students in their decision making about enrolling in such programs. KEY WORDS: best practice, online education, collabora-tive, speech-language pathology, student outcomes
A
Best Practices in an Online Master’s
Degree Program in Communication
Sciences and Disorders
Carol C. Dudding
Teresa C. Drulia
James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA
s audiology and speech-language pathology practitioners embrace the use of technologies for the diagnosis and remediation of commu-nication disorders, university programs are moving forward in their use of technologies to prepare future professionals. A review of the literature yields little in terms of peer-reviewed publications regarding the development, imple-mentation, and student outcomes of online programs in communication sciences and disorders (CSD), even though such programs have existed for more than a decade. The information that is available is most often presented at con-ferences and posted on the programs’ websites. As online offerings in CSD expand, the application of best practices with consideration of the unique needs of such programs
is paramount. These practices should be evidence based in order to ensure quality student outcomes in the preparation of future professionals.
This article offers an overview of current online degree programs in CSD, identifies evidence-based practices in on-line education, and provides a detailed description of how best practices in online education were applied to a multi-institutional online speech-language pathology master’s degree program. The information presented in this article should benefit institutions that are developing or revising online education programs and assist students in their deci-sion making about enrolling in such programs.
Online Education’s Impact
on Higher Education
The proliferation of online education programs has had an undeniable impact on higher education. The Sloan Con-sortium (Sloan-C) Report, “Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States, 2009” (Allen & Seaman, 2010), reported that >4.6 million college students in the United States were enrolled in at least one online course in the fall of 2008. This reflects a 17.0% increase from the previous year and exceeds the 1.2% annual increase in overall enrollment in higher education (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Institutions of higher education have cited efforts to increase student access and provide outreach to students outside of their geographic area as reasons for engaging in online education (Allen & Seaman, 2007). Online education is viewed as a means of “growth in continuing/professional education, increasing degree completion rates, enhancing
Table 1. Summary of findings for the 13 fully online master’s degree programs in speech-language pathology.
Program requirements Clinical requirements Admission process Outcomes data Tuition assistance
11 offer part-time enrollment (average 3 years for comple-tion, range of 2–6 years) 4 require summer enrollment 10 matriculate students as a
cohort
13 provide online coursework 2 require on-site attendance for
course repeats and/or summer courses
3 require face-to-face orientations; 2 require online orientations
11 offer annual admis-sion; 2 offer biennial admission
13 provide minimum stan-dards for admission 5 provide in-state
prefer-ence; some post distance from campus as criteria
7 report partial to full exit data for graduates, which may include Praxis pass rate, graduation rates, and employment rates Graduation rates ranged
from 60% to 97%; Praxis pass rates ranged from 83% to 100%; postgraduation employment was 100%
10 offer tuition as-sistance
3 stipulate tuition sup-port in exchange for school employ-ment
10 state clinical require-ments on website 8 require some on-site
clinical practicum
Internet. Interaction can occur either synchronously (i.e., at the same time) or asynchronously (at a later time). A search of ASHA’s EdFind database and the Internet yielded 13 speech-language pathology programs that offer online master’s degree programs. Two online Doctor of Audiology degree programs were identified through an Internet search but were not identified on EdFind. Forty-six universities were identified as offering some online coursework, and 14 universities were reported to offer prerequisite coursework online.
Information about the online education program require-ments, clinical requirerequire-ments, admission process, student outcomes data, and tuition assistance for the 13 fully online speech-language pathology master’s degree programs was obtained through review of the programs’ websites and e-mail correspondence. A summary of findings is offered in Table 1. In some cases, there was a limited amount of in-formation specific to online student outcome data available on the programs’ websites. The majority of online master’s degree programs in speech-language pathology offer a part-time curriculum, provide web-based coursework, have some on-campus requirements (e.g., clinical practica and/or orientation), and target specific student populations (e.g., distance from university or interest in specific setting). In some instances, tuition assistance was linked to employ-ment within a specified setting (i.e., public school).
A Model of Best Practices
in Online Education
Stakeholders (e.g., educators and students) want assurance that the educational outcomes for online education pro-grams are comparable to those for traditional face-to-face programs; such quality outcomes are guided by evidence-based practices. The chief learning officer of Sloan-C, a recognized international leader in online education, es-tablished five key pillars for determining the quality and effectiveness of online education based on the research literature: learning effectiveness, cost effectiveness and in-stitutional commitment, access, faculty member satisfaction, and student satisfaction (Moore, 2005). This framework offers guidance in the planning, implementation, and as-sessment stages of an online education program. A descrip-tion of the five pillars, along with specific indicators for performance, is provided in Table 2.
the institution’s brand value, and providing pedagogic im-provements” (Allen & Seaman, 2010, p. 17).
Distance Education in CSD
CSD program accreditation standards. According to the ASHA website (www.asha.org), the Council on Academic Accreditation (CAA) has recognized distance learning since 1998. For purposes of the CAA, distance education is defined as
a formal educational process in which 50% or more of the required graduate academic credit hours, excluding practicum, may be accrued when the learner is separated from the instruc-tor, and there is support for regular and substantive interaction between the students and the instructor. The interaction may be synchronous or asynchronous. (ASHA, 2011, p. 1)
Current ASHA CAA guidelines require that an accredited CSD program complete and submit a Substantive Change Plan 12 months before adding a distance education com-ponent (ASHA, 2011). The substantive change process requires that the accredited program demonstrate how the distance education component is equivalent to the tradi-tional program in terms of administrative structure and governance, faculty/instructional staff, academic and clinical education curriculum, students, and program resources.
CAA-accredited degree programs are required to include data on the status of the distance education component as part of the annual reporting process. As of January 2011, CAA standard 4.5 was added to specifically address dis-tance education programs. The standard states:
The program must adhere to its institutional policies and procedures to verify that a student who registers for a distance education course or program is the same student who partici-pates in and completes the program and receives the academic credit. (ASHA, 2010a, p. 1)
The American Academy of Audiology’s Accreditation Commission for Audiology Education accreditation manual currently makes no mention of distance education programs.
Current Online Programs in CSD
The growth of distance education has been accelerated by the development of online learning. Online learning is a form of distance education that is delivered over the
Learning effectiveness. The first pillar of effective practice in online education is learning effectiveness. A substantial amount of research has shown online education to be as effective, or more effective, as traditional learning environments (Allen & Seaman, 2007; Association of Pub-lic and Land-Grant Universities Sloan National Commission on Online Learning, 2009; Lou, Bernard, & Abrami, 2006; Senior, 2010; Williams, 2006). In 2009, the U.S. Depart-ment of Education conducted a meta-analysis of >1,000 empirical studies published from 1996 through July 2008. Findings revealed that in many instances, students in online learning conditions performed better than those receiving face-to-face instruction.
In addressing learning effectiveness within an online education program, consideration should be given to the (a) establishment of clear student expectations for commu-nication, (b) optimal interaction and collaboration between students and instructors within course design, (c) effective use of technologies that encourage student engagement in the learning process and access to content, (d) systematic program evaluation process that includes all of the stake-holders, (e) establishment of standardized measures of student achievement, and (f) policies for academic honesty and integrity (Moore, 2005).
Cost effectiveness and institutional committment. The second pillar of effective practice is cost effectiveness and institutional commitment. Moloney and Oakley (2010) advocated that successful online programs have cost-ef-fective strategies and a strong institutional commitment that contribute to the growth and sustainability of online initiatives. It is recommended that these two factors be jointly considered early in the planning stages in or-der to promote sustainability and growth. Consior-derations for improving cost effectiveness include (a) establishing consortia and partnerships with other institutions in order to share resources/costs, (b) redesigning and combining courses in an effort to reduce costs and burden on faculty, (c) effectively using free and existing technologies, and (d) developing self-help tools for faculty and students (Moore, 2005). Other proven strategies to improve cost effectiveness include offering complete degrees as opposed to individual courses, reinvesting tuition revenue into program develop-ment, strategically marketing to the target population, and ensuring access to a sufficient number of online faculty members to meet the growth of the program (Moloney & Oakley, 2010).
Access. The third pillar of effective practice addresses student access so that all learners have the opportunity to Table 2. Five pillars for determining the quality of online education.
Pillar of quality Description Quality indicators
Learning effectiveness The quality of online learning is comparable Clear student expectations
to that of traditional offerings. Optimal interaction and collaboration
Effective use of technologies
Systematic program evaluation
Standardized measures of student achievement
Clear understanding of policies for academic
honesty and integrity
Cost effectiveness and Institutions continually improve quality while Establishment of consortia and other partnerships to institutional commitment reducing costs. share resources/costs
Redesign of courses for reduced costs and
faculty time
Effective use of technologies
Development of self-help tools
Access All learners have the opportunity to be Website to provide access to information about
successful in online learning. the program
Open student access to academic resources and
specialized support services
Clearly stated admission process
Use of technology and processes to provide
access to special populations
Faculty satisfaction Faculty report success with online teaching Opportunities to connect with other faculty and satisfaction with the experience. Ongoing and self-paced faculty training programs
Established recognition and reward for online
teaching
Opportunities to conduct scholarship
Student satisfaction Students are successful in online learning Student preparation for the online experience and are pleased with the experience. Well-established community of learners
Feedback on a regular basis
Learning that is engaging, personalized, and meaningful to
the student
Note. From “A Synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices,” by J. C. Moore, 2005, Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 9(3), p. 58. Copyright 2005 by Sloan Consortium. Adapted with permission.
be successful in online education. Pillar three highlights the importance of (a) websites that provide access to informa-tion about the program, (b) open student access to academ-ic resources and specialized support servacadem-ices (e.g., access to library databases), (c) a clearly stated admission process, and (d) access by special populations (Moore, 2005). When considering a special population of learners, instructional designers and program developers should be aware of the design and instructional considerations necessary to accom-modate persons with disabilities (Burgstahler, 2002).
Faculty satisfaction. The fourth pillar of effective practice in online education is faculty satisfaction. Online teaching requires a strong commitment on the part of the instructor. This pillar is based on research that suggests that faculty members’ level of commitment is directly related to their personal and professional satisfaction (Thomp-son, 2002). Sloan-C reported that >90% of online faculty members surveyed were satisfied with the teaching experi-ence, and 80% would teach online again (Thompson, 2002). Moore (2005) reported several factors that influence faculty satisfaction with online education, including (a) ensuring that faculty members participate in the governance, intel-lectual property, and royalty sharing; (b) providing adequate faculty training and support; (c) offering repeat teaching of courses; and (d) adding new faculty members to show growing endorsement of online education programs. Other research suggests that institutional recognition and rewards, as well as workload adjustments, also contribute to faculty satisfaction (Thompson, 2002).
Student satisfaction. The fifth pillar of effective practice in online education is student satisfaction. Online education programs should be aware that student satisfaction is directly linked to higher graduation rates, lower loan default rates, and higher alumni giving (Noel-Levitz, 2008). In order to maximize student satisfaction, online education programs should ensure that (a) students are adequately prepared for the online experience; (b) a community of learners is established; (c) students have the opportunity to provide feedback on a regular basis; and (d) learning is engaging, personalized, and meaningful to the student (Moore, 2005). It is also important to systematically obtain feedback from online students for purposes of quality improvement, increas-ing student retention, and future marketincreas-ing efforts. Student dissatisfaction is often the result of a mismatch between learner expectations and the realities of the online education program in terms of academic requirements and a perceived lack of student support services (Noel-Levitz, 2008). These findings highlight the importance of clear expectations and user-friendly support systems beginning with student recruit-ment and continuing throughout matriculation.
A Model of Best Practices
in an Online CSD Program
This section describes how best practices in online educa-tion were applied to the planning, implementaeduca-tion, and program evaluation stages of a multi-institutional online master’s degree program in speech-language pathology. This information should benefit those institutions that are devel-oping or revising their online education programs.
Program development. The Commonwealth of Virginia, like many states across the nation, faces a shortage of qual-ified speech-language pathologists (SLPs) employed in the public schools. This shortage prompted a unified response on the part of the speech-language pathology graduate pro-grams in Virginia and the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE). The Distance Learning in Virginia Educating SLPs (DLVE-SLP) program was developed as a partnership of four university programs, with funding from the VDOE, to aid in increasing the number of qualified SLPs available for employment in the Virginia public schools. The DLVE-SLP program was designed so that nontraditional students with an expressed commitment to work in the public schools, many of whom are located in rural settings throughout the state, could obtain a master’s degree in speech-language pathology on a part-time basis.
All accredited CSD university programs in the state were invited to be involved in developing a part-time online master’s degree program. Interested universities met for 1 year, sometimes with the guidance of an external modera-tor, to establish the shared values and goals for the partner-ship. All members strongly agreed that any educational offerings would have to meet the same high standards of excellence as the existing on-campus programs. It was further stipulated that the online program would not jeop-ardize the resources of the existing on-campus programs. Ultimately, four accredited CSD programs accepted the invitation to join the project: Hampton University, James Madison University, Longwood University, and the Univer-sity of Virginia.
As part of a collaborative multi-institutional model, students applied to and were admitted to one of the four participating universities. Once admitted, the students agreed to abide by all of the policies and procedures of the admitting university. The DLVE-SLP program served as a mechanism for assisting with recruiting and screen-ing prospective students, deliverscreen-ing online coursework, and performing administrative duties needed to support the col-laborative program model.
Learning effectiveness. To ensure that the online dis-tance education program was of comparable quality to the traditional university program, the following measures were put into place according to best practices in learning ef-fectiveness. To address student expectations, the DLVE-SLP program website presented potential applicants with a clear understanding of the mission of the online program along with detailed information about the DLVE-SLP candidacy and admission processes specific to each university. Once admitted, students signed a statement acknowledging an understanding of the academic policies and procedures that were presented within a DLVE-SLP-specific handbook and the student handbook for their admitting university. Any updates or changes to policies were communicated through a secured website and e-mail communications.
A number of distance education technologies were em-ployed to promote learning effectiveness. A course man-agement system (Blackboard) was employed for course delivery across the online program. Blackboard allowed for posting of materials such as narrated Powerpoint pre-sentations, audio and/or video clips, readings, and other
web-based resources. Faculty members were encouraged to communicate with students through virtual office hours and discussion forums. A web-conferencing tool, known as Elluminate, allowed for synchronous real-time communica-tion between faculty and students.
Oversight of the quality of the DLVE-SLP program resided with the advisory board. The advisory board con-sisted of one representative from each of the participating universities as well as a representative from a historically black university with an undergraduate CSD program. It was believed that inclusion of an undergraduate historically black university would increase the diversity of the DLVE-SLP program student body. The advisory board was charged with the creation of DLVE-SLP-specific policies, approval of and changes to the curriculum plan, and oversight of the online program evaluation processes. A consultant was hired to design a systematic program evaluation plan in ac-cordance with best practices. The evaluation plan consisted of formative and summative measures for student achieve-ment and mechanisms for student and stakeholder feedback. The advisory board collaborated on financial and adminis-trative matters impacting all of the universities within the DLVE-SLP program. Matters of matriculation, including advising, registration, and grievance procedures, remained with each individual university.
On-site coordinators played a key role in maximizing learning effectiveness. Each university used grant funds to hire an ASHA-certified SLP to serve as an on-site coor-dinator. The coordinators, housed at the university, typi-cally provided 20–30 hr per week in their role as on-site coordinator. On-site coordinators supported students through the admission process, academic advising, and clinical practica. They provided students with ongoing support and communication, thereby maximizing student satisfaction. The employment of on-site coordinators also ensured that the universities’ participation in the DLVE-SLP program did not put a strain on their existing program resources.
Cost effectiveness and institutional commitment. Cost effectiveness and institutional commitment were addressed early in the planning stages of the DLVE-SLP program. Interuniversity agreements were developed in areas such as administration of grant monies, receipt of tuition payments, and access to educational resources. Because this online program was supported by a state-level grant, one universi-ty served as the fiscal agent and administered subgrants to the other participating universities. Each university collect-ed tuition payments for the students who were enrollcollect-ed in its university program. The fiscal agent negotiated access to library databases, e-mail systems, and a course management system common to all students and faculty members. Indi-vidual university programs submitted a Substantive Change Plan to ASHA’s CAA detailing how the distance education component would be comparable to the traditional offer-ings. Similar documentation was provided to the local and regional accreditation agencies.
The collaborative model allowed for resources and costs to be shared across university programs while meeting the needs of each individual program. After careful mapping of each university program’s knowledge and skills and course matrices onto a single shared matrix, a 3-year shared
curriculum was established. The DLVE-SLP program served as the mechanism for providing coursework to all students through the shared curriculum. The curriculum allowed stu-dents to matriculate as a cohort, completing two academic courses per semester. In order to guarantee that each course met the needs of the participating university programs, teaching faculty were provided with a template for a course syllabus to include a general course description, institution-specific descriptions, and a listing of learning objectives for all university programs. Practicum courses were scheduled per the individual university program.
A central candidacy process was instituted to realize cost efficiencies associated with the admission process by screening applicants in terms of academic preparedness, appropriateness for online education, and a stated commit-ment to employcommit-ment in the Virginia public schools. As part of the candidacy process, each candidate submitted a record of prerequisite coursework or a bachelor’s degree in CSD, Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) scores, a letter from a school administrator pledging support for technological and practica requirements, a personal statement outlining the student’s need for a distance learning model, and a signed obligation to work in the public schools of Virginia. The completed candidacy packets were collectively reviewed by one representative from each of the university programs.
After receiving approval for candidacy from a major-ity of the universmajor-ity representatives, the candidate was permitted to apply to any of the four university programs with the understanding that he or she was required to pay all fees, follow all procedures, and meet all requirements of the university to which he or she was applying. The granting of candidacy did not guarantee admission to a university program. The universities independently reviewed applicants and applied their own admission standards to accepting qualified students to the programs. The candi-dacy process was admittedly rigorous but was helpful in identifying students who may not have been appropriate for the online program, thereby reducing costs associated with student attrition.
Access. Access was a key consideration in the successful implementation of the DLVE-SLP program in that it was designed for nontraditional students, many of whom were located in rural settings throughout the state. A list of the minimum hardware, software, and access requirements was made available on the DLVE-SLP program website. These requirements were included in the orientation materials for admitted students. In accordance with best practices, stu-dents were given open access to shared learning resources such as a course management system, digital databases, multimedia libraries, and streaming servers to support the learning objectives of the online program. Instructional support and HelpDesk services were available to all stu-dents and faculty members. Digital video conferencing for supervision was an option when on-site supervision was not available or required supplementation. These arrangements provided students with common experiences and resources throughout the online program, thereby enhancing access and promoting faculty and student satisfaction.
Faculty satisfaction. Faculty satisfaction was critical in ensuring that the DLVE-SLP program achieved the
desired educational outcomes. Although all instructors were experienced in face-to-face teaching at the graduate level, the majority had no prior experience with online teaching. Faculty received a stipend to support their attendance at a 3- to 5-day training course in the pedagogy and technol-ogy for online instruction and to support development of the course. Faculty also received financial support to attend annual DLVE-SLP student meetings. These meetings offered faculty the opportunity to meet students in a face-to-face environment, interface and share with other online instruc-tors, and gain new skills in online teaching. Recently, the DLVE-SLP program began offering professional continuing education units to faculty for participation in ongoing train-ing related to online learntrain-ing.
Student satisfaction. Developers of the DLVE-SLP program understood that student satisfaction is the result of the students’ experiences with many different facets of the program. Many of the processes put into place to ad-dress the earlier best practices (e.g., learning effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and institutional commitment, access, and faculty satisfaction) also served to support a positive student experience. In addition to the quality indicators discussed in earlier sections of this article, best practice in distance education stresses the importance of establishing social communities in order to avoid feelings of isolation, provide networks of support, share resources, and estab-lish working relationships.(Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Northrup, 2001; Shea, Li, & Pickett, 2006). To this end, the DLVE-SLP program required student attendance at yearly face-to-face meetings. All matriculating students, advisory board members, and faculty were invited to attend. Grant funds paid the travel expenses for the advisory board members and faculty. Students were responsible for the ex-penses related to attending the yearly face-to-face meetings. Students were aware of these requirements before applying to the DLVE-SLP program.
The initial meeting was a 2-day orientation at a central location that offered information on learning strategies for online learning, time management, use of the technologies, and DLVE-SLP program requirements. The second annual meeting focused on preparation for the practicum experi-ences. The final annual meeting included information about requirements for graduation, including completion of the Praxis examination and university-specific comprehensive examination procedures. These meetings served to foster community among the students, encourage student–faculty and faculty–faculty communication, and enhance student identity with the DLVE-SLP program.
University programs took additional steps to develop a sense of community with the admitting university by deco-rating breakout rooms at the annual meetings with school paraphernalia and issuing university ID cards allowing access to on-campus events and services. As mentioned earlier, the on-site coordinators were instrumental in supporting the students through all phases of matriculation and greatly en-hanced student satisfaction with the DLVE-SLP program.
Clinical practica. Clinical practicum experiences were another important component of the DLVE-SLP program. Clinical practica remained the responsibility of the univer-sity program where the student was enrolled. All students
completed a mandatory on-campus clinical practicum at their admitting university the second summer following matriculation. Students were made aware of the clini-cal requirement before application and acceptance to the DLVE-SLP program. Completion of this initial practica often required the student to secure housing near the admit-ting university for the summer term. In most instances, the students were integrated into existing university summer programs, with the on-site coordinators serving in the ca-pacity of supervisor.
The initial on-campus clinical experience was important for several reasons: (a) It offered the university supervisor an opportunity to directly assess the students’ clinical skills, (b) the students participated in their initial practicum in a highly structured environment before being placed within the community, and (c) the experience aided in establishing an allegiance with the home university. The majority of stu-dents reported emotional, logistical, and financial stressors associated with the on-site requirement, yet at the end of the summer, many students reported the on-site practicum to be a positive and valuable experience.
Remaining clinical practica were secured at a loca-tion close to the student’s home or place of employment. Challenges remained in that many of the students were employed full-time in a public school, thereby limiting their availability to participate in a range of clinical sites. To meet this challenge, students secured release from their full-time employment to complete practica and/or scheduled full-time placements for summer months. A clinical super-visory database was created to serve as a shared resource for all university programs to support students in locating clinical practica sites that met their needs.
Online Program Evaluation
Systematic program evaluation is important to provide stakeholders with information about the standards and learning outcomes of the programs. Program evaluation is recognized as an indicator of learning effectiveness and is required by many state, regional, and national accrediting agencies, including ASHA’s CAA. It is equally important for online education programs in CSD to disseminate this information so that potential online learners can make informed decisions before enrolling in an online education program. Additionally, this information allows the field of CSD to begin to build its own set of best practices in dis-tance education. The following outcomes of the DLVE-SLP program are provided with that purpose in mind.
Student demographics. To date, three cohorts of students have been accepted into the DLVE-SLP program. A new cohort is accepted every 2 years. The number of applicants for candidacy has increased for each cohort, but the demo-graphics of the admitted students remain relatively constant. The typical student enrolled in the DLVE-SLP program is a White female, ~34 years of age, who is married and is employed full-time in a school. Table 3 provides data on selected student demographics for each admitted cohort, including admission rates, age, and employment status. Online program applicants reported that distance from a university, work responsibilities, family responsibilities,
and financial considerations were reasons for applying to a distance learning program. Individual university programs reported that the grade point averages and GRE scores of the admitted students were similar to those of the students who were enrolled in the traditional university programs.
Online program outcomes. A program evaluation plan consisting of both formative and summative assessment measures was constructed and implemented from the initial stages of development. As part of the evaluation plan, students completed anonymous course evaluations that were constructed specifically for online coursework. Instructional faculty members and DLVE-SLP program directors re-viewed the course evaluations as a basis for curriculum and instructional changes. Each university program provided the principal investigator with an annual summary that included information on the status of student matriculation and pro-gram changes that might impact the DLVE-SLP propro-gram. Summative data were collected in the form of graduation rates, pass rates for the Praxis national exam, and pass rates for university-specific comprehensive examinations.
At the time of publication, two cohorts had completed the DLVE-SLP program. Of that initial cohort, 16 of the 20 students (80%) enrolled in the program graduated suc-cessfully from the university program in which they were enrolled. Fifty-seven percent of the second cohort graduated within the 3-year period, with an additional 22% expected to graduate within an additional two semesters. Delays in graduation were due to insufficient clinical hours at the time of graduation. The graduation rate was well above the reported national average graduation rate of 50% to 70% for all distance education offerings (Hannum, Irvin, Leib, & Framer, 2008). Students who left the DLVE-SLP program did so for personal reasons, and the majority left within the first year of study. All graduating students within the DLVE-SLP program took and passed the Praxis exam, with an average score of 685 (range 610–730). This average score is 1 SD above ASHA’s reported mean Praxis score (669) for SLPs in 2008–2009 (ASHA, 2010b). All graduat-ing students successfully completed the university-specific comprehensive examination requirements.
Of importance to the mission and purpose of the DLVE-SLP program, upon graduation, 87% (13/15) of the gradu-ating students accepted positions as a master’s-level SLP in the public schools of Virginia. The 16th student resided
outside of Virginia but was employed in a public school in her state of residence. Graduates were surveyed 1 year post graduation, with a 50% response rate. Seventy-five percent of that sample remained employed within the public school setting; two graduates were employed within the health care setting.
Conclusion
The initial cohort of students graduated in May 2010, 5 years after initial planning of the DLVE-SLP program. The experience provided the university programs with a wealth of information about what worked and what chal-lenges remained. The first lesson addressed the importance of cost effectiveness and institutional commitment and was centered on the coordination of multi-institutions with divergent needs and interests. The success of this project proved that collaboration was possible with careful plan-ning, mutual respect for differences, and a common goal of providing a quality education for SLPs while maintaining the autonomy of each university program. The advisory board was credited with the program’s success by providing considerable guidance in the development of policies and procedures and in ensuring quality standards commensurate with the universities’ traditional on-campus programs.
It is the impression of the authors that the initial candi-dacy process, although requiring considerable time and ef-fort, was valuable for both the participants and the overall success of the DLVE-SLP program. The candidacy process provided the potential student with a clear picture of ex-pectations, rigors, and requirements of the online program in accordance with best practices. Additionally, the candi-dacy process limited student expenses related to applying to multiple university programs with little hope of meeting admission requirements. It also allowed students time to put support systems into place before beginning coursework. Some students took advantage of the feedback provided during the candidacy process to retake GREs or specific coursework in order to improve their chances of successful admission to a university program.
The DLVE-SLP program benefited from the candidacy process in that it served to ensure that the candidates had accurate perceptions of the requirements of the program and helped to identify participants who lacked independence and Table 3. Candidacy, admission rates, and selected demographics of the three cohorts of students accepted into the Distance Lerning in Virginia Educating Speech-Language Pathologists (DLVE-SLP) program.
Percentage approved Percentage offered Age (in years) Employment status at Cohort for candidacy admission to a university M Range time of candidacy
1 37 57% (21/37) 34.2 24–50 Data unavailable
(total number of candidates
unavailable)
2 74% (49/66) 47% (23/49) 33.3 23–55 81.0% full-time
14.0% part-time
3 88% (68/77) 47% (32/68) 33.5 21–58 75.0% full-time
13.2% part-time
for admission. Yet, academic attrition is likely with this population of learners.
Future Directions
The DLVE-SLP program will continue to evolve, along with the field of distance education, in both the use of technology and pedagogy based on best practices. The pro-gram plans to examine areas of efficiencies and move to-ward a model of fiscal sustainability and cost effectiveness. The program is considering the following: (a) expanding the program outside of Virginia; (b) exploring technologies and policies to ensure academic integrity; (c) expanding the use of digital video conferencing technologies for super-vision; (d) extending the program evaluation process to include stakeholders, faculty members, and graduates of the program; and (e) conducting ongoing research in the area of online education of graduate students in CSD.
The information in this article is intended to offer uni-versity programs that are considering developing an online program a roadmap employing the five pillars of best prac-tices in online education: (a) learning effectiveness, (b) cost effectiveness and institutional commitment, (c) access, (d) faculty satisfaction, and (e) student satisfaction. The article is provided to inform online learners about factors to be considered before enrolling in an online graduate program. Lastly, we hope to encourage research and publication in the area of online education in order to address best practices specific to the needs of CSD programs. Suggested areas for research include alternate methods of obtaining clinical competencies (e.g., virtual cases and web-based supervision), alternate student assessment measures, and predictors of student success in the online learning environment.
ACknOwleDgMenTS
This online program was funded by a grant from the Virginia Department of Education. The authors wish to acknowledge Lissa Power deFur, Vicki Reed, Randall Robey, and Dorian Wilker-son for their invaluable role in development of the collaborative master’s degree program. The authors offer a special note of ap-preciation to Vicki Reed for assistance with this manuscript.
RefeRenCeS
Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2007). Online nation: 5 years of
growth in online learning. Retrieved from
http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/pdf/online_nation.pdf.
Allen, E. I., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on demand: Online
education in the United States 2009. Retrieved from http://www.
sloanconsortium.org/publications/survey/pdf/learningondemand.pdf. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (n.d.). EdFind.
Retrieved from www.asha.org/edfind/.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010a). CAA
Addendum – Standard 4.5. Retrieved from http://www.asha.
org/uploadedFiles/CAA-Addendum-Standard-4.5.doc. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010b).
National summary report: Descriptive statistics of PRAXIS examination scores for the speech-language pathology specialty
commitment imperative in distance learning. In summation, the candidacy process aided in identifying candidates with the best potential for successful matriculation and was a factor in minimizing attrition.
The emphasis on clear and consistent communication between students, faculty members, and advisors was central in enhancing student and faculty satisfaction. This was accomplished through regular meetings of the advisory board, annual meetings involving faculty members and students, ongoing collaborative communication among on-site coordinators, student access to a shared e-mail system, virtual faculty office hours within courses, and regular opportunities for students and faculty members to provide feedback about the program. Students appear to have found community and identity in being part of the DLVE-SLP program by establishing relationships with other students that crossed university lines.
Further, instructional faculty members’ and students’ training in the technical requirements as part of the DLVE-SLP program was also related to the program’s success. Faculty members received training in the pedagogical and technical aspects of educational technologies. Students received hands-on training in accessing course content, communicating with others, and searching library databases. Help Desk and support services were available on an as-needed basis. Although technology failures are unavoidable in any arena, the instructors and students in the DLVE-SLP program came to accept them as a part of the process. All parties were encouraged to problem solve and to make nec-essary accommodations in the event of technology failures. It became clear to the advisory board and instructional faculty that nontraditional adult learners have different needs than those of traditional on-campus students. The seminal work of Malcolm Knowles (1973) identified the adult learner as the “neglected species.” Knowles described adult learners as self-directed and goal oriented, bringing with them a wealth of life experiences. These students de-sire information that is relevant and practical. The students in the DLVE-SLP program brought with them a variety of professional and personal experiences upon which to build their newly acquired knowledge in the area of speech- language pathology. Instructors were encouraged to design courses and assignments with these factors in mind.
Students enrolled in the DLVE-SLP program also brought some challenges to be considered. In spite of an emphasis on student satisfaction and access, many of the students in the program expressed the stress of balancing the demands of work, family, and the program. Several experienced health problems and personal economic difficulties (i.e., loss of a spouse’s job, military deployment) that impacted their participation and performance. Although these factors could be accommodated in some instances, there were oc-casions when these stressors resulted in a student leaving the DLVE-SLP program. Our findings are comparable to those reported in an Education Dynamics survey (2009) that reported that finances (49%), life events (32%), and health issues (23%) are leading causes of attrition in distance edu-cation programs. In an attempt to maximize retention, the DLVE-SLP program made every effort to fully disclose the rigors and expectations of the program before application
test for test administration years 1998–1999 through 2008–2009.
Rockville, MD: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2011).
Ap-plication of substantive change for distance education. Retrieved
from http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/SCP2008StdsDE.pdf. Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities Sloan
National Commission on Online Learning. (2009). Online
learning as a strategic asset: Volume II—The paradox of faculty voices: Views and experiences with online learning.
Washing-ton, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.aplu.org/document. doc?id=1879.
Burgstahler, S. (2002). Distance learning: Universal design, uni-versal access. Educational Technology Review, 10(1), 32–61. Education Dynamics Survey. (2009). Education Dynamics Survey:
Many online learners never seek help before dropping out.
Retrieved from http://www.educationdynamics.com/downloads/ press-releases/survey-stop-out.pdf.
Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough.
American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.
Hannum, W. H., Irvin, M. J., Leib, P., & Framer, T. W. (2008). Effectiveness of using learner-centered principles on student retention in distance education courses in rural schools. Distance
Education, 29(3), 211–229.
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Re-trieved from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED084368.pdf.
Lou, Y., Bernard, R. M., & Abrami, P. C. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory based meta-analysis of empirical literature. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 54(2), 141–176.
Moloney, J. F., & Oakley, B. (2010). Scaling online education: Increasing access to higher education. Journal of Asynchronous
Learning Network, 14(1), 55–70.
Moore, J. C. (2005). A synthesis of Sloan-C effective practices.
Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 9(3), 57–75.
Noel-Levitz, Inc. (2008). The 2008 National Online Learners
Pri-orities Report. Retrieved from http://www.noellevitz.com/upload/
Papers_and_Research/2008/OnlineLearners08.pdf.
Northrup, P. (2001). A framework for designing interactivity into web-based instruction. Educational Technology 41(2), 31–39. Senior, R. (2010). Connectivity: A framework for understanding
effective language teaching in face-to-face and online learn-ing communities. RELC: A Journal of Language Teachlearn-ing and
Research, 41(2), 137–147.
Shea, P., Li, C. S., & Pickett, A. (2006). A study of teaching presence and student sense of learning community in fully on-line and web-enhanced college courses. The Internet and Higher
Education, 9(3), 175−190.
Thompson, M. (2002). Faculty satisfaction. Sloan-C View, 1(2), 6–7.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development. (2010). Evaulation of evidence-based
practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office.
Williams, S. L. (2006). The effectiveness of distance education in allied health science programs: A meta analysis of outcomes.
American Journal of Distance Education, 20(3), 127–141.
Contact author: Carol C. Dudding, Department of Communication Science and Disorders, James Madison University, 800 South Main Street, MSC 4304, Harrisonburg, VA 22807. E-mail: [email protected].